Then, the election rolls along. There's a chance that Mitt Romney actually wins the thing, and at this point the Obama administration realizes: maybe it's not a good thing to have limitless, extralegal power to kill with no accountability? I mean, the Republicans aren't us, we can't trust them as much.

Epic ****ing facepalm. The realization that accountability needs to be in place to protect us from the other party, rather than to protect the most basic foundations of American jurisprudence, due process, and public service. Just shockingly stupid.

Add into all of this: the Obama administration is seeking a rulebook. Whatever that is. Legal framework? Legal accountability? Better access for oversight? It may not be until another Republican comes close to winning a Presidential election before we find out. Christ.

Election Spurred a Move to Codify U.S. Drone Policy
By SCOTT SHANE
Published: November 24, 2012

WASHINGTON — Facing the possibility that President Obama might not win a second term, his administration accelerated work in the weeks before the election to develop explicit rules for the targeted killing of terrorists by unmanned drones, so that a new president would inherit clear standards and procedures, according to two administration officials.

The matter may have lost some urgency after Nov. 6. But with more than 300 drone strikes and some 2,500 people killed by the Central Intelligence Agency and the military since Mr. Obama first took office, the administration is still pushing to make the rules formal and resolve internal uncertainty and disagreement about exactly when lethal action is justified.

Mr. Obama and his advisers are still debating whether remote-control killing should be a measure of last resort against imminent threats to the United States, or a more flexible tool, available to help allied governments attack their enemies or to prevent militants from controlling territory.

Though publicly the administration presents a united front on the use of drones, behind the scenes there is longstanding tension. The Defense Department and the C.I.A. continue to press for greater latitude to carry out strikes; Justice Department and State Department officials, and the president’s counterterrorism adviser, John O. Brennan, have argued for restraint, officials involved in the discussions say.

More broadly, the administration’s legal reasoning has not persuaded many other countries that the strikes are acceptable under international law. For years before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the United States routinely condemned targeted killings of suspected terrorists by Israel, and most countries still object to such measures.

But since the first targeted killing by the United States in 2002, two administrations have taken the position that the United States is at war with Al Qaeda and its allies and can legally defend itself by striking its enemies wherever they are found.

Partly because United Nations officials know that the United States is setting a legal and ethical precedent for other countries developing armed drones, the U.N. plans to open a unit in Geneva early next year to investigate American drone strikes.

The attempt to write a formal rule book for targeted killing began last summer after news reports on the drone program, started under President George W. Bush and expanded by Mr. Obama, revealed some details of the president’s role in the shifting procedures for compiling “kill lists” and approving strikes. Though national security officials insist that the process is meticulous and lawful, the president and top aides believe it should be institutionalized, a course of action that seemed particularly urgent when it appeared that Mitt Romney might win the presidency.

“There was concern that the levers might no longer be in our hands,” said one official, speaking on condition of anonymity. With a continuing debate about the proper limits of drone strikes, Mr. Obama did not want to leave an “amorphous” program to his successor, the official said. The effort, which would have been rushed to completion by January had Mr. Romney won, will now be finished at a more leisurely pace, the official said.

Mr. Obama himself, in little-noticed remarks, has acknowledged that the legal governance of drone strikes is still a work in progress.

“One of the things we’ve got to do is put a legal architecture in place, and we need Congressional help in order to do that, to make sure that not only am I reined in but any president’s reined in terms of some of the decisions that we’re making,” Mr. Obama told Jon Stewart in an appearance on “The Daily Show” on Oct. 18.

In an interview with Mark Bowden for a new book on the killing of Osama bin Laden, “The Finish,” Mr. Obama said that “creating a legal structure, processes, with oversight checks on how we use unmanned weapons, is going to be a challenge for me and my successors for some time to come.”

The president expressed wariness of the powerful temptation drones pose to policy makers. “There’s a remoteness to it that makes it tempting to think that somehow we can, without any mess on our hands, solve vexing security problems,” he said.

Despite public remarks by Mr. Obama and his aides on the legal basis for targeted killing, the program remains officially classified. In court, fighting lawsuits filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and The New York Times seeking secret legal opinions on targeted killings, the government has refused even to acknowledge the existence of the drone program in Pakistan.

But by many accounts, there has been a significant shift in the nature of the targets. In the early years, most strikes were aimed at ranking leaders of Al Qaeda thought to be plotting to attack the United States. That is the purpose Mr. Obama has emphasized, saying in a CNN interview in September that drones were used to prevent “an operational plot against the United States” and counter “terrorist networks that target the United States.”

But for at least two years in Pakistan, partly because of the C.I.A.’s success in decimating Al Qaeda’s top ranks, most strikes have been directed at militants whose main battle is with the Pakistani authorities or who fight with the Taliban against American troops in Afghanistan.

In Yemen, some strikes apparently launched by the United States killed militants who were preparing to attack Yemeni military forces. Some of those killed were wearing suicide vests, according to Yemeni news reports.

“Unless they were about to get on a flight to New York to conduct an attack, they were not an imminent threat to the United States,” said Micah Zenko, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who is a critic of the strikes. “We don’t say that we’re the counterinsurgency air force of Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, but we are.”

Then there is the matter of strikes against people whose identities are unknown. In an online video chat in January, Mr. Obama spoke of the strikes in Pakistan as “a targeted, focused effort at people who are on a list of active terrorists.” But for several years, first in Pakistan and later in Yemen, in addition to “personality strikes” against named terrorists, the C.I.A. and the military have carried out “signature strikes” against groups of suspected, unknown militants.

Originally that term was used to suggest the specific “signature” of a known high-level terrorist, such as his vehicle parked at a meeting place. But the word evolved to mean the “signature” of militants in general — for instance, young men toting arms in an area controlled by extremist groups. Such strikes have prompted the greatest conflict inside the Obama administration, with some officials questioning whether killing unidentified fighters is legally justified or worth the local backlash.

Many people inside and outside the government have argued for far greater candor about all of the strikes, saying excessive secrecy has prevented public debate in Congress or a full explanation of their rationale. Experts say the strikes are deeply unpopular both in Pakistan and Yemen, in part because of allegations of large numbers of civilian casualties, which American officials say are exaggerated.

Gregory D. Johnsen, author of “The Last Refuge: Yemen, Al Qaeda and America’s War in Arabia,” argues that the strike strategy is backfiring in Yemen. “In Yemen, Al Qaeda is actually expanding,” Mr. Johnsen said in a recent talk at the Brookings Institution, in part because of the backlash against the strikes.

Shuja Nawaz, a Pakistan-born analyst now at the Atlantic Council in Washington, said the United States should start making public a detailed account of the results of each strike, including any collateral deaths, in part to counter propaganda from jihadist groups. “This is a grand opportunity for the Obama administration to take the drones out of the shadows and to be open about their objectives,” he said.

But the administration appears to be a long way from embracing such openness. The draft rule book for drone strikes that has been passed among agencies over the last several months is so highly classified, officials said, that it is hand-carried from office to office rather than sent by e-mail.

I'm not arguing that waterboarding is torture. I honestly don't know enough about it to say one way or the other.

But I am against torturing prisoners, as it hasn't even proven to be more effective than modern interrogation techniques.

And that's fine, I don't suggest it being a common practice. I just don't understand the logic water boarding is bad when trying to save lives but killing innocent bystanders is ok when trying to do the same thing (drone strikes).

And that's fine, I don't suggest it being a common practice. I just don't understand the logic water boarding is bad when trying to save lives but killing innocent bystanders is ok when trying to do the same thing (drone strikes).

In the end they both are trying to accomplish the same goal.

It's not apples to apples.

Torture has been against even the "war" rules that have been agreed to since WW1. In those agreements that we signed, waterboarding is considered torture. And the scientific fact is that torture has not proven any more effective than other "information obtaining" techniques. The detained combatant are no longer a future threat to us, they are off the battlefield.

When we seek to kill enemy combatants with drones we must have reliable information that the individual or terrorist cell is there at the target. 98% of the time, those around the target are also enemy combatants or know that the target is an high value target. Those near him should know that being in proximity to this target is putting yourself in danger. In this new era, where ever the high value target is, that's where the battlefield is now. They are still a current and future threat to Americans. And we can't always wait to take them out.

Torture has been against even the "war" rules that have been agreed to since WW1. In those agreements that we signed, waterboarding is considered torture. And the scientific fact is that torture has not proven any more effective than other "information obtaining" techniques. The detained combatant are no longer a future threat to us, they are off the battlefield.

When we seek to kill enemy combatants with drones we must have reliable information that the individual or terrorist cell is there at the target. 98% of the time, those around the target are also enemy combatants or know that the target is an high value target. Those near him should know that being in proximity to this target is putting yourself in danger. In this new era, where ever the high value target is, that's where the battlefield is now. They are still a current and future threat to Americans. And we can't always wait to take them out.

It is apples to apples.

So there is never any justification for water boarding an apprehended terrorist?

Torture has been against even the "war" rules that have been agreed to since WW1. In those agreements that we signed, waterboarding is considered torture. And the scientific fact is that torture has not proven any more effective than other "information obtaining" techniques. The detained combatant are no longer a future threat to us, they are off the battlefield.

When we seek to kill enemy combatants with drones we must have reliable information that the individual or terrorist cell is there at the target. 98% of the time, those around the target are also enemy combatants or know that the target is an high value target. Those near him should know that being in proximity to this target is putting yourself in danger. In this new era, where ever the high value target is, that's where the battlefield is now. They are still a current and future threat to Americans. And we can't always wait to take them out.

It's not a scientific fact. It is a useful thing to preach as if it's a proven fact for maintaining discipline/order within the ranks of the military and law enforcement agencies though.

__________________

“The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend to be something they’re not.” - Hillary Clinton

Its difficult to accept that torture is immoral unless you are willing to recognize morality. Torture is simply wrong in Christian set of morals. For some cultures and religions it is not seen as wrong if an enemy is mistreated. We are a Christian people thus we reject torture. It has nothing to do with science at all

__________________
Frazod to KC Nitwit..."Hey, I saw a picture of some dumpy bitch with a horrible ****tarded giant back tattoo and couldn't help but think of you." Simple, Pure, Perfect. 7/31/2013

Dave Lane: "I have donated more money to people in my life as an atheist that most churches ever will."

Has nobody bothered to read the NYU/Stanford report on drones? They create more terrorist than they kill.

Some say they do. Some say they don't. War is rarely won or lost in a study. Most wars end when one side has delivered enough death and destruction the other side gives up. Death by drone is hardly different than death by carpet bombing wide areas from a B 52 or from a mass invasion and use of artillery and riflemen. More enemies are created by any form of military might until the overwhelming power is recognized and the end of war is more desireable than more fighting. Ugly isn't it?

"It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it" (Robert E. Lee)

__________________
Frazod to KC Nitwit..."Hey, I saw a picture of some dumpy bitch with a horrible ****tarded giant back tattoo and couldn't help but think of you." Simple, Pure, Perfect. 7/31/2013

Dave Lane: "I have donated more money to people in my life as an atheist that most churches ever will."

Has nobody bothered to read the NYU/Stanford report on drones? They create more terrorist than they kill.

Al-Quaeda was a real threat to us here in the homeland. They had the infrastructure, communications and logistics to really pull off another killing Americans on USA soil.

I hate that innocents die in these strikes. And yes, more terrorists are created because of these drone strikes. Al-Quaeda is still dangerous but no longer a credible threat on the scale of 9/11. The main reason for this is the decimation of their leadership and militant cells through drone strikes. It's war, innocent people get killed.

IMHO, to achieved that outcome, those drone strikes and the resulting collateral damage is just part of the tragedy of war.

And that's fine, I don't suggest it being a common practice. I just don't understand the logic water boarding is bad when trying to save lives but killing innocent bystanders is ok when trying to do the same thing (drone strikes).

Thats because you clearly are not getting it.

Prisoners are people ALREADY under our control.

Drone strikes are used to take out targets which we cannot easily get any other way, without risk of life to our men.

You are making it harder than it needs to be , honestly.

Drones are used in COMBAT.

Waterboarding is considered torture by some people and torture is used on prisoners (already captured, hence NOT in combat any more).

You seem to be confusing the arguments, and water boarding being (or not being) torture is a completely separate argument.

I am honestly pretty surprised you still fail to grasp this fairly basic concept.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons...

Passed 420-1 in the house, and 98-2 in the senate, totally bi-partisan

Passed 420-1 in the house, and 98-2 in the senate, totally bi-partisan

Spare me the condescending tone, pal. I am fully aware of this. I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of opposing waterboarding while supporting drone attacks because it's "war", when war has never been declared.